Assault weapons

Related:
Create New Tag

8/16/2019 7:15 AM

Harry Backmon wrote:

I'm not gonna down vote ole Sam. I just wonder if we really needed another thread about this. This has been done to death here. A search of the site will prove that out.

I said the other day I don't get into any kind of thread where weapons are involved as far as a debate. I will say this much, and then leave it alone - because to me it is the "be all and end all" to the question of "Why do you need that sort of weapon?"

It's none of your business. Mind your own business and don't worry about mine. The Bill of Rights says I can, and that's all you need to know about the why of it. Further, did you know the Bill of Rights is not meant to limit the citizen? It is meant to limit what government can do to a citizen. The Bill of Rights is all about limiting government - not the citizen. It's really a beautiful document until it gets reinterpreted into meaning something it was never meant to say, and it's not hard to figure out what the founders meant when they wrote it. There are so many writings by them outside of the Bill of Rights making it very clear what they intended with each of the amendments.

Honestly, that's all I'm going to add. Take it or leave it. Sam, don't feel "put upon" by me. You're a good poster and a good guy to have around Vital.

Falcon wrote:

Holy shit, THIS.


America had just finished ridding itself of absolute tyranny when the founding fathers wrote The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. They wrote the whole thing with the intent to make it impossible for another king or autocracy to enslave the populace, even going so far as to enshrine and approve a method whereby the populace could remove the governing body by force and replace it with something better, if needed. The 2nd amendment is truly what gives The Constitution its and THE PEOPLE their power, and any other freedom you hold dear owes its very existence to the 2nd.
Do you like the right to not testify against yourself? Thank the 2nd amendment.
Do you like the right to vote? Thank the 2nd.
Do you like the right to free speech? Thank the 2nd.
The truth of the matter is that any leader in any country could at once decide to become supreme leader by fiat, and THE PEOPLE of The United States are the best equipped populace to destroy such evil at the outset.



avidchimp wrote:

Good luck with that. The people without arms far outweigh the ones that do, so you are already out-numbered by the "man."

The only issue with the second amendment for me is the founding fathers could never have imagined the firepower one person could wield with two arms and a weapon. Anyone here who thinks they can fight the government with their personal arsenal and some fragmented group of like-minded people are just kidding themselves.

Use your vote to make change, which ever way you feel on this, and any other issue.

Could never have imagined? You must have not read much by the founding fathers. Sadly, not many do or have.

Here is what one said;
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. ... Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither. Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security." - Benjamin Franklin

...or maybe you could ask the Germans how they felt about gun control during Nazi control.

|

8/16/2019 8:20 AM
Edited Date/Time: 8/16/2019 8:20 AM

Harry Backmon wrote:

Sure, both rounds are of a similar diameter. I can't remember off the top of my head, but I believe they are the same diameter - hence the other name for the 5.56 - .223.

5.56 is a little different to .223, the former having fractionally different case dimensions and being higher pressure - the military version of the .223 really. The rule of thumb generally is that you can fire both .223 and 5.56 out of a rifle marked 5.56 but only .223 out one marked .223. It'll probably work but long term isn't considered to be safe. There are exceptions though; I believe Ruger state that their Mini 14s can take both despite only being marked .223.

|

8/16/2019 8:27 AM

Motocross83 wrote:

5.56 is a little different to .223, the former having fractionally different case dimensions and being higher pressure - the military version of the .223 really. The rule of thumb generally is that you can fire both .223 and 5.56 out of a rifle marked 5.56 but only .223 out one marked .223. It'll probably work but long term isn't considered to be safe. There are exceptions though; I believe Ruger state that their Mini 14s can take both despite only being marked .223.

.223 whyld is the "best of both" allowing you to shoot 5.56 or .223

|

8/16/2019 9:01 AM

colintrax wrote:

.223 whyld is the "best of both" allowing you to shoot 5.56 or .223

Because the 5.56 rifle will allow you to use both types of ammo.

A .223 can only fire .223 marked ammunition.

Therefore the 5.56 has more utility and flexibility.

|

"We don't rent pigs."

8/16/2019 9:15 AM

Falcon wrote:

Holy shit, THIS.


America had just finished ridding itself of absolute tyranny when the founding fathers wrote The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. They wrote the whole thing with the intent to make it impossible for another king or autocracy to enslave the populace, even going so far as to enshrine and approve a method whereby the populace could remove the governing body by force and replace it with something better, if needed. The 2nd amendment is truly what gives The Constitution its and THE PEOPLE their power, and any other freedom you hold dear owes its very existence to the 2nd.
Do you like the right to not testify against yourself? Thank the 2nd amendment.
Do you like the right to vote? Thank the 2nd.
Do you like the right to free speech? Thank the 2nd.
The truth of the matter is that any leader in any country could at once decide to become supreme leader by fiat, and THE PEOPLE of The United States are the best equipped populace to destroy such evil at the outset.



avidchimp wrote:

Good luck with that. The people without arms far outweigh the ones that do, so you are already out-numbered by the "man."

The only issue with the second amendment for me is the founding fathers could never have imagined the firepower one person could wield with two arms and a weapon. Anyone here who thinks they can fight the government with their personal arsenal and some fragmented group of like-minded people are just kidding themselves.

Use your vote to make change, which ever way you feel on this, and any other issue.

OldYZRider1 wrote:

Government forces backed down from the Bundys for fear of another total shit show that developed in Waco. The Bundy's were armed and militias were present.

Many of Americans have multiple guns, I have a gun safe full of them and many people have multiple guns safes full of guns and ammo. So millions of Americans with many more millions of guns. I believe we could outfit a considerable number of Americans with guns and ammo to at least make an initial stand.

But I personally have a hard time believing our government forces would turn against their own people even if given a directive to do so. I also believe that many, many sheriffs around the country would not participate in any sort of gun confiscation if things ever come to that. They like knowing that millions of lawful gun owning Americans are backing them up. The bullshit that happened in Philly indicates to me that they may increasingly appreciate that fact.

But - using that example - what if the Bundys were totally on the wrong side of the law and public good?

That would be a case of the 2nd. kind of backfiring.

(Not saying they were, I have no idea, just using for an example since they were mentioned).

|

HAF

8/16/2019 9:19 AM

Harry Backmon wrote:

I'm not gonna down vote ole Sam. I just wonder if we really needed another thread about this. This has been done to death here. A search of the site will prove that out.

I said the other day I don't get into any kind of thread where weapons are involved as far as a debate. I will say this much, and then leave it alone - because to me it is the "be all and end all" to the question of "Why do you need that sort of weapon?"

It's none of your business. Mind your own business and don't worry about mine. The Bill of Rights says I can, and that's all you need to know about the why of it. Further, did you know the Bill of Rights is not meant to limit the citizen? It is meant to limit what government can do to a citizen. The Bill of Rights is all about limiting government - not the citizen. It's really a beautiful document until it gets reinterpreted into meaning something it was never meant to say, and it's not hard to figure out what the founders meant when they wrote it. There are so many writings by them outside of the Bill of Rights making it very clear what they intended with each of the amendments.

Honestly, that's all I'm going to add. Take it or leave it. Sam, don't feel "put upon" by me. You're a good poster and a good guy to have around Vital.

Falcon wrote:

Holy shit, THIS.


America had just finished ridding itself of absolute tyranny when the founding fathers wrote The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. They wrote the whole thing with the intent to make it impossible for another king or autocracy to enslave the populace, even going so far as to enshrine and approve a method whereby the populace could remove the governing body by force and replace it with something better, if needed. The 2nd amendment is truly what gives The Constitution its and THE PEOPLE their power, and any other freedom you hold dear owes its very existence to the 2nd.
Do you like the right to not testify against yourself? Thank the 2nd amendment.
Do you like the right to vote? Thank the 2nd.
Do you like the right to free speech? Thank the 2nd.
The truth of the matter is that any leader in any country could at once decide to become supreme leader by fiat, and THE PEOPLE of The United States are the best equipped populace to destroy such evil at the outset.



ns503 wrote:

2nd. has nothing to do with that stuff.

As far as I know the USA is the only country in the world that has a 2nd. type thing, and way far from the only country that has all that other nice stuff. And/or freedom.

You are focusing on what these countries have, and not what they could lose.
Private firearm ownership protects us from the latter coming to pass.

|

Braaapin' aint easy.

8/16/2019 9:23 AM
Edited Date/Time: 8/16/2019 9:26 AM

Harry Backmon wrote:

I'm not gonna down vote ole Sam. I just wonder if we really needed another thread about this. This has been done to death here. A search of the site will prove that out.

I said the other day I don't get into any kind of thread where weapons are involved as far as a debate. I will say this much, and then leave it alone - because to me it is the "be all and end all" to the question of "Why do you need that sort of weapon?"

It's none of your business. Mind your own business and don't worry about mine. The Bill of Rights says I can, and that's all you need to know about the why of it. Further, did you know the Bill of Rights is not meant to limit the citizen? It is meant to limit what government can do to a citizen. The Bill of Rights is all about limiting government - not the citizen. It's really a beautiful document until it gets reinterpreted into meaning something it was never meant to say, and it's not hard to figure out what the founders meant when they wrote it. There are so many writings by them outside of the Bill of Rights making it very clear what they intended with each of the amendments.

Honestly, that's all I'm going to add. Take it or leave it. Sam, don't feel "put upon" by me. You're a good poster and a good guy to have around Vital.

Falcon wrote:

Holy shit, THIS.


America had just finished ridding itself of absolute tyranny when the founding fathers wrote The Constitution and The Bill of Rights. They wrote the whole thing with the intent to make it impossible for another king or autocracy to enslave the populace, even going so far as to enshrine and approve a method whereby the populace could remove the governing body by force and replace it with something better, if needed. The 2nd amendment is truly what gives The Constitution its and THE PEOPLE their power, and any other freedom you hold dear owes its very existence to the 2nd.
Do you like the right to not testify against yourself? Thank the 2nd amendment.
Do you like the right to vote? Thank the 2nd.
Do you like the right to free speech? Thank the 2nd.
The truth of the matter is that any leader in any country could at once decide to become supreme leader by fiat, and THE PEOPLE of The United States are the best equipped populace to destroy such evil at the outset.



avidchimp wrote:

Good luck with that. The people without arms far outweigh the ones that do, so you are already out-numbered by the "man."

The only issue with the second amendment for me is the founding fathers could never have imagined the firepower one person could wield with two arms and a weapon. Anyone here who thinks they can fight the government with their personal arsenal and some fragmented group of like-minded people are just kidding themselves.

Use your vote to make change, which ever way you feel on this, and any other issue.

I think the founding fathers knew very well the potential for technological advances and worked to ensure the populace had a similar, if not equal, footing in the arms race as a check on power. They were very big on not letting any one body become too powerful. For that reason they made sure civilians had the right to own guns. Big, scary ones if necessary.

EDIT: Clearly, the vote is our first, best option. And an armed insurrection by the populace would be a catastrophic, civil war-type scenario, not a well-armed small group trying to take on the US Army.

|

Braaapin' aint easy.

8/16/2019 9:30 AM

ns503 wrote:

But - using that example - what if the Bundys were totally on the wrong side of the law and public good?

That would be a case of the 2nd. kind of backfiring.

(Not saying they were, I have no idea, just using for an example since they were mentioned).

Actually no. Even if the Bundys were wrong (and they were not, I’ve deeply investigated the case), what took place was the government used violence against the Bundys to get what they wanted. The people then stood up to the government with force and demanded that they stop the violence and they prevailed. That is a victory for the 2nd and the very reason it exists. The government initiated the violence and the people stopped it.

|

8/16/2019 9:41 AM

7I3N wrote:

Actually no. Even if the Bundys were wrong (and they were not, I’ve deeply investigated the case), what took place was the government used violence against the Bundys to get what they wanted. The people then stood up to the government with force and demanded that they stop the violence and they prevailed. That is a victory for the 2nd and the very reason it exists. The government initiated the violence and the people stopped it.

What is your view on the Branch Dravidians ?

|

"We don't rent pigs."

8/16/2019 9:43 AM

Thanks for the info about the .223 and 5.56. I've never owned either type. Back before the boating accident robbed me of my weapons I had an M-1 and thousands of rounds of .30-06 as my heavy hitter. I like the big cartridges and I loved that rifle. It was accurate and clip fed. Alas, it and all my weapons, save for a rusty .22 pistol, are at the bottom of a gator infested swamp.

|

8/16/2019 10:06 AM

JAFO92 wrote:

What is your view on the Branch Dravidians ?

That’s a deep rabbit hole. You need to pack a lunch before you head down that one! wink

|

8/16/2019 11:07 AM
Edited Date/Time: 8/16/2019 11:08 AM

I dont know about the rest of you guys...
If I'm going to get into a gunfight - I want to have a firearm and further more the best technology I can get my hands on in regards to a firearm. It's pretty much the reason people own AR's & title-2 weapons - they are easier to fight and maneuver with. Looking into most of these mass shootings that have occurred they are very effective in an offensive manner - both sides agree with that. What works good in an offensive manner works good in a defensive manner also. One side agrees with that and the other is lost listening to the banging of the ban drums.
You can put all the bans you want on anything but you cannot erase a technology that is easily reproduced.
People will still own them regardless - like criminals.


|

8/16/2019 11:12 AM

FLmxer wrote:

Also a lot of people love the gun hobby like you like your dirtbike hobby. There is also folks out there that want to decide for you that dirtbikes are very dangerous and should be taken away because adults and kids are killed or injured on them regularly. All it takes is one politicians kid to get hurt or the divorced politician mom that didnt sign the waver and the ex spouse did and little Billy got hurt or worse.

Very unlikely someone would use a dirt bike to kill 25 people in a mall with though. Dirt bikes and guns are apples/oranges.

|

8/16/2019 11:30 AM

FastEddy wrote:

I dont know about the rest of you guys...
If I'm going to get into a gunfight - I want to have a firearm and further more the best technology I can get my hands on in regards to a firearm. It's pretty much the reason people own AR's & title-2 weapons - they are easier to fight and maneuver with. Looking into most of these mass shootings that have occurred they are very effective in an offensive manner - both sides agree with that. What works good in an offensive manner works good in a defensive manner also. One side agrees with that and the other is lost listening to the banging of the ban drums.
You can put all the bans you want on anything but you cannot erase a technology that is easily reproduced.
People will still own them regardless - like criminals.


is it really the same? to protect yourself i would presume a semi auto shot gun next to the bed would be as good as anything at close range in a home invasion type event, when your half asleep most likely dark and just want to shoot it off your hip and get the guy out of the house,

where that would not be that good for getting mass casualties wanted by these mass shooters,

|

8/16/2019 11:37 AM
Edited Date/Time: 8/16/2019 11:59 AM

scott_nz wrote:

is it really the same? to protect yourself i would presume a semi auto shot gun next to the bed would be as good as anything at close range in a home invasion type event, when your half asleep most likely dark and just want to shoot it off your hip and get the guy out of the house,

where that would not be that good for getting mass casualties wanted by these mass shooters,

A shotgun is scatter-gun and yes you can get them in semi-auto that hold lots of rounds - drum mags etc.
https://www.usa-gun-shop.com/best-magazine-shotgun-mossberg-saiga-remington/
A Saiga 12 would be a nite-mare - it could do a lot of damage to multiple soft targets with each round


In a defensive situation of civil unrest -mobs of people you could probably deter them in an effective defense manner.
Just depends on the situation I assume.
But....
Also when firing a scatter gun in the close confines of a home especially a shorter barrel that even spreads more
you could possibly injure or kill other family members,roommates,pets etc... unwanted property damage.

Having a short barrel AR variant in a 9mm. is what I prefer for home defense.
Civil unrest - full size in .223 or 300 blackout.
You can also suppress any of those rounds with a decent can and sub-sonic ammo
to keep the shots quiet in regards to scaring children for instance.

And as for home invasions...sometimes those are done by not just 1 guy but groups of people.
Gangs etc..




|

8/16/2019 12:02 PM

FastEddy wrote:

A shotgun is scatter-gun and yes you can get them in semi-auto that hold lots of rounds - drum mags etc.
https://www.usa-gun-shop.com/best-magazine-shotgun-mossberg-saiga-remington/
A Saiga 12 would be a nite-mare - it could do a lot of damage to multiple soft targets with each round


In a defensive situation of civil unrest -mobs of people you could probably deter them in an effective defense manner.
Just depends on the situation I assume.
But....
Also when firing a scatter gun in the close confines of a home especially a shorter barrel that even spreads more
you could possibly injure or kill other family members,roommates,pets etc... unwanted property damage.

Having a short barrel AR variant in a 9mm. is what I prefer for home defense.
Civil unrest - full size in .223 or 300 blackout.
You can also suppress any of those rounds with a decent can and sub-sonic ammo
to keep the shots quiet in regards to scaring children for instance.

And as for home invasions...sometimes those are done by not just 1 guy but groups of people.
Gangs etc..




would a 9mm not go through walls, making shooting your loved ones a possibility as well?

thought the shot gun at close range would limit that,

i'm just glad i live in a place that this is not really ever talked about, as the risk of home invasion is so low,

|

8/16/2019 12:08 PM
Edited Date/Time: 8/16/2019 12:42 PM

scott_nz wrote:

would a 9mm not go through walls, making shooting your loved ones a possibility as well?

thought the shot gun at close range would limit that,

i'm just glad i live in a place that this is not really ever talked about, as the risk of home invasion is so low,

Nothing is guaranteed when it comes to 9mm ammo as for it passing through walls 1 round at a time.
But accuracy of the target is the objective round per round rather then a large group of lead or pellets spraying through sheet rock and wood ending up god knows where.
However there is 9mm & .45 ammo out there that you can get like glasier safety slugs. It's what our police here use that are on commercial jets. So when they fire them they don't shoot a hole in the plane and kill everyone.
It's a good hollow point ammo that expands upon impact and shouldn't go through a soft target such as a person
and not penetrate the aircraft.

On the other end - back to shotgun...you can also get less than lethal ammo for a shotgun.
If you want to practice with it and go through a lot of it and learn what it does and how effective it is.
But using conventional shotgun ammo wouldn't be my go to indoors.
But also keep in mind the recoil of a shotgun is typically far worse and in regards to firing multiple shots
muzzle/barrel rise will also cause inaccuracy. A 9mm carbine or sbr doesnt hardly have any recoil...
easy for females/elderly folks and smaller people to handle also.

|

8/16/2019 12:18 PM

scott_nz wrote:

is it really the same? to protect yourself i would presume a semi auto shot gun next to the bed would be as good as anything at close range in a home invasion type event, when your half asleep most likely dark and just want to shoot it off your hip and get the guy out of the house,

where that would not be that good for getting mass casualties wanted by these mass shooters,

In a home invasion event? Do you think criminals only break into houses by themselves?

You presume a semi auto shotgun would be as good as anything? Still an "assault" weapon.
They want to take those away the same as every other semi-auto. Same category.

To add, you should also have a bright weapon light attached to whatever gun you may use for protection at night. It would be stupid to not use one.

Assault weapons being banned does not stop mass shooters. Guns are not the problem. It's people. It's not even mental health issues. It's people getting fed up with _______ and losing their minds.

|

8/16/2019 2:09 PM

I always read the argument “you think
You’re taking on the US army with your little ar15 ?”

Yea. I do. People of the us army are citizens of the United States. The us army isn’t going to lay waste to
It’s citizens in the name of government. In my opinion the soldiers in the army would defend the citizen first before the government. Soldiers wouldn’t take unlawful orders.

Take ww2 for example. Regular German soldiers were doing their job. The Tyrannical govt developed the SS to destroy everything they ordered to destroy. The us army doesn’t have that. Our checks and balances prevent a tyrannical government. But if those checks and balances were ever given up....then a tyrant could create a modern SS force in the us army. And if the citizens don’t have guns. God help us.

|

GP740
Since 1987

8/16/2019 2:37 PM

FastEddy wrote:

I dont know about the rest of you guys...
If I'm going to get into a gunfight - I want to have a firearm and further more the best technology I can get my hands on in regards to a firearm. It's pretty much the reason people own AR's & title-2 weapons - they are easier to fight and maneuver with. Looking into most of these mass shootings that have occurred they are very effective in an offensive manner - both sides agree with that. What works good in an offensive manner works good in a defensive manner also. One side agrees with that and the other is lost listening to the banging of the ban drums.
You can put all the bans you want on anything but you cannot erase a technology that is easily reproduced.
People will still own them regardless - like criminals.


scott_nz wrote:

is it really the same? to protect yourself i would presume a semi auto shot gun next to the bed would be as good as anything at close range in a home invasion type event, when your half asleep most likely dark and just want to shoot it off your hip and get the guy out of the house,

where that would not be that good for getting mass casualties wanted by these mass shooters,

Well how many deaths will you consider tolerable in a mass shooting? You seem to be ok with a semi-auto shotgun for home defense but even a pump action shotgun can put out 5 shots in short order. If that's done in a gun free zone like a school or church you could have five dead within a minute. Carry two sawed off shotguns and you can possibly get ten before you'll need to reload. And you may be able to reload before any police arrive to take you out.

I remember back in the late 1990's after the North Hollywood shootout, the police were complaining that they did not have sufficient firepower to combat the advancing weaponry the criminals were getting their hands on. In fact I believe the police borrowed AR-15's from local gunstores to combat the perps as they were outgunned. Also these dudes were fully clothed in body armor such that the police handguns and shotguns weren't effective against them. These dudes had AK-47's during the time when the US had a federal assault weapons ban in effect.

|

8/16/2019 2:57 PM
Edited Date/Time: 8/16/2019 2:59 PM

OldYZRider1 wrote:

Government forces backed down from the Bundys for fear of another total shit show that developed in Waco. The Bundy's were armed and militias were present.

Many of Americans have multiple guns, I have a gun safe full of them and many people have multiple guns safes full of guns and ammo. So millions of Americans with many more millions of guns. I believe we could outfit a considerable number of Americans with guns and ammo to at least make an initial stand.

But I personally have a hard time believing our government forces would turn against their own people even if given a directive to do so. I also believe that many, many sheriffs around the country would not participate in any sort of gun confiscation if things ever come to that. They like knowing that millions of lawful gun owning Americans are backing them up. The bullshit that happened in Philly indicates to me that they may increasingly appreciate that fact.

If I am following this correctly, you have guns to keep the government in check.

Is that correct?

Then you say that military will not fire upon US citizens, even if given the order to do so.

Is that correct?

Then you say that Sheriff's won't enforce 2nd Amendment restrictions?

If I have all of those correct, you have a gun to fire upon your fellow Americans that you disagree with?

|

8/16/2019 3:00 PM

FLmxer wrote:

Also a lot of people love the gun hobby like you like your dirtbike hobby. There is also folks out there that want to decide for you that dirtbikes are very dangerous and should be taken away because adults and kids are killed or injured on them regularly. All it takes is one politicians kid to get hurt or the divorced politician mom that didnt sign the waver and the ex spouse did and little Billy got hurt or worse.

sam hain wrote:

Very unlikely someone would use a dirt bike to kill 25 people in a mall with though. Dirt bikes and guns are apples/oranges.

That is not the point, The point is that there are lots of people out there that think its up to them to decide what other people should or shouldn't have or do because they don't like it. Just by the title of your thread " assault weapons" I can tell you don't think others should have them even though you cant give a definition of what a assault weapon is and by your first post I don't really think you are as neutral on the subject as you are trying to pass yourself off as being.

|

Ed Johnson

8/16/2019 3:03 PM

I have an "assault dog" for home invasions.
She'll give me plenty of time to aim carefully.

|

Go for it! Don't let a little thing like fear, or common sense hold you back.

8/16/2019 3:08 PM

Lostboy,
You are just kinda playing a game with that "tell me what an assault rifle is" stuff.

Magazine vs. clip.

It is kinda like when Supreme Court Justice Potter talked about porn.

"What is the definition of "porn", he was asked.

"I know it when I see it."


You know what people are talking about when they say "assault rifle".

Let's be intellectually honest in this discussion, or there is not a reason to have it.

|

8/16/2019 3:11 PM

SEEMEFIRST wrote:

I have an "assault dog" for home invasions.
She'll give me plenty of time to aim carefully.

As do I.

|

Ed Johnson

8/16/2019 3:21 PM
Edited Date/Time: 8/16/2019 3:58 PM

Shiftfaced wrote:

Lostboy,
You are just kinda playing a game with that "tell me what an assault rifle is" stuff.

Magazine vs. clip.

It is kinda like when Supreme Court Justice Potter talked about porn.

"What is the definition of "porn", he was asked.

"I know it when I see it."


You know what people are talking about when they say "assault rifle".

Let's be intellectually honest in this discussion, or there is not a reason to have it.

If people want to ban "Assault rifles" you would need a definition on what a assault rifle is. Some people say if it has a pistol grip its a assault rifle, some say if it can hold over 10 rounds, some say if it can be reloaded quickly, some say if it shoots .223 or 5.56 its a assault rifle if its a AR15 or AK47 its a assault rifle.

They banned magazines over 10 rounds in Colorado but you can still buy 30 round magazines at any gun store in Colorado legally because all they do is disassemble them and sell it as a parts kit so all you need to do is take 30 seconds to put it together.

Is my AR15 a "assault weapon" how about my mini14 ranch rifle ? Bernie Sanders says he will ban assault weapons if he was elected but I bet he couldn't and wouldn't. I have a flame thrower is that a assault weapon? I have semi auto shot guns are those assault weapons and what about my large magazine pistols ? Or is he talking about military grade weapons, like M4 M16s

|

Ed Johnson

8/16/2019 3:25 PM

SEEMEFIRST wrote:

I have an "assault dog" for home invasions.
She'll give me plenty of time to aim carefully.

lostboy819 wrote:

As do I.

Beautiful dog there.

|

8/16/2019 4:47 PM

Shiftfaced wrote:

Lostboy,
You are just kinda playing a game with that "tell me what an assault rifle is" stuff.

Magazine vs. clip.

It is kinda like when Supreme Court Justice Potter talked about porn.

"What is the definition of "porn", he was asked.

"I know it when I see it."


You know what people are talking about when they say "assault rifle".

Let's be intellectually honest in this discussion, or there is not a reason to have it.

Idaho eh. Bet you moved there from California.

|

8/16/2019 4:52 PM
Edited Date/Time: 8/16/2019 6:24 PM

avidchimp wrote:

Good luck with that. The people without arms far outweigh the ones that do, so you are already out-numbered by the "man."

The only issue with the second amendment for me is the founding fathers could never have imagined the firepower one person could wield with two arms and a weapon. Anyone here who thinks they can fight the government with their personal arsenal and some fragmented group of like-minded people are just kidding themselves.

Use your vote to make change, which ever way you feel on this, and any other issue.

OldYZRider1 wrote:

Government forces backed down from the Bundys for fear of another total shit show that developed in Waco. The Bundy's were armed and militias were present.

Many of Americans have multiple guns, I have a gun safe full of them and many people have multiple guns safes full of guns and ammo. So millions of Americans with many more millions of guns. I believe we could outfit a considerable number of Americans with guns and ammo to at least make an initial stand.

But I personally have a hard time believing our government forces would turn against their own people even if given a directive to do so. I also believe that many, many sheriffs around the country would not participate in any sort of gun confiscation if things ever come to that. They like knowing that millions of lawful gun owning Americans are backing them up. The bullshit that happened in Philly indicates to me that they may increasingly appreciate that fact.

Shiftfaced wrote:

If I am following this correctly, you have guns to keep the government in check.

Is that correct?

Then you say that military will not fire upon US citizens, even if given the order to do so.

Is that correct?

Then you say that Sheriff's won't enforce 2nd Amendment restrictions?

If I have all of those correct, you have a gun to fire upon your fellow Americans that you disagree with?

The second amendment is an insurance police against a tyranical government forming. I can have my guns, use them responsibly and the government does not know that I have them or how many I have. If shit goes sideways, there’s millions like me to come to put down the tyrant if required.

And if we were to elect a tyrant who wanted to abolish the second amendment and take away guns, I would hope (and expect) that he/she could not marshall the military to put down the large confrontation that will surely occur and avoid an ending like Chinese citizens experienced during the Tianaman Square massacre.

And if an assault weapon ban were to be imposed I doubt that local authorities would actively go after owners they know are in possesion of them to confiscate them unless that owner were to do something irresponsible or threatening with them.

|

8/16/2019 6:28 PM

Harry Backmon wrote:

Idaho eh. Bet you moved there from California.

I like to wager.

Got anything behind that statement?

|